Obama to Confront Israeli Settlement Surge in Netanyahu Meeting

[cali]

By Jonathan Ferziger

May 14 (Bloomberg) -- On a West Bank plateau overlooking the desert road to Jericho, crews are building cottages and paving streets for a new neighborhood in Maale Adumim, Israel’s biggest settlement.

A town of 35,000 with a suburban-style shopping mall, Maale Adumim is one of about two dozen settlements Israel is expanding in the face of demands from U.S. and European leaders to halt construction. The push has helped increase the number of Jewish settlers in the West Bank, where Palestinians hope to create a state, by 40 percent in the last seven years to almost 300,000.

Settlements will be on the agenda when President Barack Obama, who supports Palestinian statehood, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is skeptical about it, meet at the White House next week. Vice President Joe Biden told Israel supporters in Washington on May 5 that settlement-construction must stop, the strongest statement on the subject so far from the administration.

“If Obama seriously expects a breakthrough, he’s going to have to keep the pressure on Netanyahu and test his commitment to a solution the Palestinians can live with,” said Yoram Meital, chairman of the Chaim Herzog Center for Middle East Studies at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba. “It’s going to be very hard to get Netanyahu to agree to a complete freeze on settlement-building.”

<skip>

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=abPE7AMWQTWQ&refer=home

[MUAD_DIB]

1. Obama should just shut off the flow of money to Israel.

That will get their attention.


Then maybe BiBi will realize that the USA means business.

[cali]

2. How? Seriousl;y, he doesn't have

the legal ability to do that. Think Congress. Now he could propose doing so, but fortunately, he's not that stupid. If you want to dwell in reality and understand what he could do, there was an excellent article that someone posted here about the measures he could realistically take to pressure Israel. I'll try and find it. I'm blanking now on the name and author.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

5. Here is a link to it.

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/10/can_the_united_states_put_pressure_on_israel_a_users_guide

[cali]

6. yes, thanks so much. I just remembered it was Walt

I appreciate your posting the link. Excellent article.

[MUAD_DIB]

11. What I suggested was in the thrid paragraph.

Last week, the Economist called for the United States to reduce its aid to Israel if the Netanyahu government continues to reject a two-state solution. The Boston Globe offered a similar view earlier this week, advising Obama to tell Netanyahu "to take the steps necessary for peace or risk compromising Israel's special relationship with America."


It is high time that Israel acknowledges that the US is their benefactor.

[cali]

12. um, no. FAIL.

. Cut the aid package? If you add it all up, Israel gets over $3 billion in U.S. economic and military aid each year, which works out to about $500 per Israeli citizen. There’s a lot of potential leverage here, but it’s probably not the best stick to use, at least not at first. Trying to trim or cut the aid package will trigger an open and undoubtedly ugly confrontation in Congress (where the influence of AIPAC and other hard-line groups in the Israel lobby is greatest). So that’s not where I’d start. Instead, I’d consider a few other options, such as:

Not to mention, my friend, that the paragraph you quoted does not, erroneously state, as YOU did, that Obama could cut the aid.

[MUAD_DIB]

14. You can hem and haw all you want. What I suggested was in the third paragraph.

Why are you trying to now deflect from that?


Well, my friend... what I suggested was in the third paragraph. I even posted the content.


AIPAC much?

[cali]

17. now, now. try a little bit of honesty, my dear friend.

Everyone can see that YOU are the one dodging like a cornered kitty cat. You're the one that made the ignorent and wholly false claim that Obama could single handedly block funds from going to Israel. You seem stuck on....

[MUAD_DIB]

18. It is spelled ignorant, and perhaps you need to calm down

and re-read my post.

As I stated, he is POTUS and can set the agenda.


Nice try.

[cali]

20. thanks for the correction

of my typo. I've only correctly spelled that word a few hundred times here- including today. Now please, stop making crap up:

"Obama should just shut off the flow of money to Israel.

That will get their attention."

Glad you corrected yourself in a later post- that doesn't negate the reality of your original claim.

And you are the one that needs to calm down, dear friend. And stop making excuses for your errors.

[MUAD_DIB]

21. You're welcome. Any time. Also I didn't make "crap" up or excuses.

And, once again, as I have stated: Obama is POTUS.

He sets the agenda.


You do understand that. Right?

Why are you continuing to have an issue with that?

[cali]

22. I understand that you're backtracking. It couldn't be more obvious

deal with it. And stop making lame excuses that are obvious for all to see.

[MUAD_DIB]

23. You do understand that the POTUS sets the agenda, right?

[BzaDem]

53. So what? You could repeat "POTUS sets the agenda" again and it STILL doesn't mean he can cut aid

unilaterally.

You could even say it another thousand times. And that still doesn't mean he could cut even one dime of that aid unilaterally.

[LeftishBrit]

54. I thought that the concept that the 'POTUS sets the agenda'..

was pretty much Bush's idea (Unitary Executive) and not part of the Constitution. I'm not American and could be wrong; but I had always thought the separation of powers was one of the things that favourably distinguished the American government from many others.

I entirely support Obama's putting pressure on Netanyahu, but he is president of a democratic country, not a dictator, or a colonial king of the Middle East.

[shaayecanaan]

24. Not really my area, but Bush Snr was able to block the loan guarantees, wasnt he?

Given that any foreign aid would be included in a bill, which could be vetoed, I dont see how he "couldnt" block it, though I acknowledge the attendant risks in doing so...

[MUAD_DIB]

9. He's POTUS. He can set the agenda.

...and I am dwelling in reality. Israel has had a free ride for long enough.

What I really find amusing are those that fall all over themselves in the defense of an apartheid state.

[cali]

13. what I find really appalling is people who make false accusations

and insinuations. it's pathetic, my friend.

[MUAD_DIB]

15. That's okay. Go have a good cry over it if it makes you feel any better.

[cali]

16. lol. I'm not crying, dear.

sorry. I'm too busy having fun demolishing your nonsense. not that it's hard to do. more like child's play, my good friend.

[MUAD_DIB]

19. As I stated. Obama is POTUS, and he can set the agenda.

[Vegasaurus]

3. Plenty of US billions flowing to Egypt, the PA, Jordan, Iraq

we can turn off the flow of money to many countries.

[safeinOhio]

4. The mood in this country is changing

Israel should pay heed.

[cali]

7. I wouldn't bank on that

nor is there much evidence that attitudes in this counry toward Israel are changing- let alone Congressional support.

[Mosby]

8. American attitudes are changing

"Though attitudes towards Palestinians are lukewarm, views of the Palestinian Authority, however, are quite unfavorable. A February 2005 Gallup poll found 27% with a favorable view and 62% with an unfavorable view. And this is the most favorable rating ever recorded - perhaps a result of new Palestinian leadership in the wake of Yasser Arafat's death in 2004. Favorable views between 9/11 and that poll were 15% or under. American attitudes toward the PA grew increasingly negative in Gallup polls from 2000 to 2004, rising from a bare majority of 52% to an overwhelming majority of 76%.<8>"



http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/IsraelPalestinians/viewIsrPal.cfm

[MUAD_DIB]

10. You're right, the USA could do that.

[IndianaGreen]

25. Considering how Obama has backpedaled on the US Constitution in the last couple of days

I doubt that he will confront anyone.

And if I find myself having less confidence and trust in Obama, why should Israel trust him?

I am getting a sinking feeling...

[Thrill]

36. Nonsense. Obama is well in his legal right to appeal a court decision

You can't have it both ways. You want the Constitution upheld? Then he is well within his rights to use the judicial system to its fullest.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Today Obama used Bush's words about "a few bad apples" in referring to Abu Ghraib

and he hasn't appointed a special prosecutor to investigate law breaking by the Bush regime.

[Thrill]

40. Nonsense. You've never heard Obama say "a few bad apples"

[IndianaGreen]

43. Obama uses Bush administration "few bad apples" defense

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Obama uses Bush administration "few bad apples" defense

The Obama administration - which had previously promised Americans a move away from the obsessive secrecy of the Bush administration towards transparency and accountablity - has decided not release photographic documentation of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq which had been scheduled for release on May 28. President Obama offered this justification for his reversal on the matter:

The publication of these photos would not add to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals.

Not only is the Obama administration becoming complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration by continuing to cover-up evidence of its wrongdoing, but it is now also using the same disgusting scapegoating tactic of blaming a "few bad apples" for abuse that has well now been demonstrated to be a systemic problem that arose from policy implemented at the highest levels of government. Johnathan Turley and Rachel Maddow addressed this aptly last night

Many defenders of this move maintain that release of the photos will endanger the lives of American soldiers. What endangers the lives of American soldiers is prisoner abuse that undermines American morale and inflames anti-American sentiment. What promotes prisoner abuse is a lack of transparency and a lack of accountability. Failure to release the photographs fosters a culture of impunity for criminal actions; sweeping them under the rug or blaming a few low level nobodies for the actions doesn't make them go away. What makes them go away is disclosure, investigation, accounting and punishment for those responsible.

If we want to not inflame anti-American sentiment we should be concerned with not abusing prisoners in the first place, not hiding abuse after the fact. As Glenn Greenwald notes today

If we're actually worried about inflaming anti-American sentiment and endangering our troops, we might want to re-consider whether we should keep doing the things that actually spawn "anti-American sentiment" and put American soldiers in danger. We might, for instance, want to stop invading, bombing and occupying Muslim countries and imprisoning their citizens with no charges by the thousands. But exploiting concerns over "anti-American sentiment" to vest our own government leaders with the power to cover-up evidence of wrongdoing is as incoherent as it is dangerous. Who actually thinks that the solution to anti-American sentiment is to hide evidence of our wrongdoing rather than ceasing the conduct that causes that sentiment in the first place?

http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2009/05/obama-uses-bush-administration-few-bad.html

Obama Administration Reverses Promise To Release Torture Photos (5/13/2009)

Decision Betrays Commitment To Transparency And The Rule Of Law

FOR IMEMDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK – The Obama administration announced today that it is reversing its promise to make public photos depicting detainee abuse by U.S. personnel overseas. The Department of Defense had told a federal judge that it would release a "substantial number" of photos in response to a court ruling in an American Civil Liberties Union Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"The Obama administration's adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president's stated desire to restore the rule of law, to revive our moral standing in the world and to lead a transparent government. This decision is particularly disturbing given the Justice Department's failure to initiate a criminal investigation of torture crimes under the Bush administration.

"It is true that these photos would be disturbing; the day we are no longer disturbed by such repugnant acts would be a sad one. In America, every fact and document gets known – whether now or years from now. And when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up. Any outrage related to these photos should be due not to their release but to the very crimes depicted in them. Only by looking squarely in the mirror, acknowledging the crimes of the past and achieving accountability can we move forward and ensure that these atrocities are not repeated.

"If the Obama administration continues down this path, it will betray not only its promises to the American people, but its commitment to this nation's most fundamental principles. President Obama has said we should turn the page, but we cannot do that until we fully learn how this nation veered down the path of criminality and immorality, who allowed that to happen and whose lives were mutilated as a result. Releasing these photos – as painful as it might be – is a critical step toward that accounting. The American people deserve no less."

More information about the ACLU's FOIA lawsuit, which has resulted in the release of more than 100,000 government documents to date, can be found online at: www.aclu.org/torturefoia

http://72.3.233.244/safefree/torture/39587prs20090513.html

[Thrill]

44. Where did Obama say a "Few Bad Apples"?

[shira]

26. real pressure is not only getting Netanyahu to commit, but also pressure Arab nations to rewrite

the Saudi Peace initiative, drop right of return and other maximalist demands, and get them to all agree on something more realistic along the lines of the Clinton Parameters. If they don't, they risk losing US aid too. Same for the PA as well.

[IndianaGreen]

27. You are really hung on Clinton's zipper...

errr.... I mean, parameters.

[shira]

28. i thought you had a problem with the PA's maximalist demands

[IndianaGreen]

29. I got problems with any word longer than 2 syllables

Return to the pre-June 1967 borders is the only solution, if we are to have a 2-state solution at all (and that's questionable).

[shira]

30. exact June 4, 1967 borders (1948 armistice lines)???

as if those borders are sacrosanct?

just asking.

[IndianaGreen]

31. Yes

and with compensation in lieu of right of return.

[shira]

why no land swaps?

[IndianaGreen]

33. No land swaps!

The settlers stole the best land and the water sources. The best way to redress this is to return to pre-June borders, and consider yourself lucky if the other side will compromise and take compensation and give up right of return.

------------------------------------------------------------

“‘How can you say, “We are wise because we have the word of the Lord,” when your teachers have twisted it by writing lies?

--Book of Jeremiah

[proteus_lives]

34. I don't think that can happen.

Removing the settlers is key and vital but 48/67 borders? I don't see Israel ever bowing to to that. For the WB and Gaza, they would require massive security concessions by the PA/Hamas/whoever's running the show. What about the Golan Heights? I don't think there exists a level of trust or peace between Israel and the ME for that massive step.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Continue on the present course, and you will get a binational state instead

if you are lucky at all.

[shira]

37. you understand PA getting exact '67 borders is very unrealistic?

a land swap proposal was rejected about a year ago in which more land around Gaza (giving Palestinians more beach front property for economical reasons) was turned down? PA negotiators agreed to land swaps at Camp David, so there's no reason to believe they wouldn't now.

Realize also that much settlement land wasn't very desirable before Israel fixed it up, thus any land could be made into good land.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Spit it out: this is all about Jerusalem!

No land swaps!

[shira]

45. looks like if it were up to you, this conflict and Palestinian suffering would go on another several

decades b/c Israel will never agree to exact June 4, 1967 borders.

If it were up to you as leader of the PA 9 years ago, would you have accepted the Clinton Parameters or watched Palestinians suffer for many more years?

[azurnoir]

41. Oh goody more blockaded waterways

the Geneva Initiative is the closest thing to a workable splution along with complete water rights and right to self defense for the Palestinians

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/static-maps/

[shira]

46. the Geneva Initiative is based on land swaps (including Gaza)

"Palestinians will recover most of the territory captured during the 1967 war by Israel. Israel will annex several densely populated areas near the Green Line (such as Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim which will be connected to Jerusalem via a road that would be annexed as well, similar to the situation of Mount Scopus after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War). Other cities (such as Ariel); communities, such as Hebron; and settlements will be removed and their residents will be evicted. In return for areas annexed by Israel from the West Bank, the Palestinians will receive territory of equal area adjacent to the Gaza Strip."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Accord

[azurnoir]

48. Never said it perfect but it is a

starting place aad an improvment over what Israel seems to have in mind

[shira]

49. where do you find that crap?

try this:

[IndianaGreen]

51. That map sucks! It has Israel keeping East Jerusalem and land East of it

Bill is no longer President.

[azurnoir]

52. that is a beautiful map

for the Israeli's but it sucks for the Palestinians



It is a bit closer to reason albeit certainly not perfect, I do not agree with a demilitarized state, I do not know of any other country that has been made a demilitarized state because it suits a hostile highly militarized neighbor, true there are state that have chosen not to have militaries but that is quite different

http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/summary

[shaayecanaan]

42. "beach front property" - incorrect

the land offered was primarily marginal agricultural land on the other side of Gaza.

[shira]

47. true, but the following is also a possibility the PA could negotiate if it were more serious

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/kramer/entry/gaza

this "beachfront" property would be far more valuable economically to Palestinians than land annexed for settlements. Besides the enormous economic boon this would provide (think Singapore), the PA could desalanate their own water and the extra land would alleviate Gaza's population density.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our second quarter 2009 fund drive.
Donate and you'll be automatically entered into our daily contest.
New prizes daily!



No purchase or donation necessary. Void where prohibited. Click here for more information.

[excess_3]

50. looking for --> maps

anybody have links to maps
of what is happening in the WestBank?

thanks